The case for lotteries as a tiebreaker of quality in research funding

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Editorial at Nature: “Earlier this month, the British Academy, the United Kingdom’s national academy for humanities and social sciences, introduced an innovative process for awarding small research grants. The academy will use the equivalent of a lottery to decide between funding applications that its grant-review panels consider to be equal on other criteria, such as the quality of research methodology and study design.

Using randomization to decide between grant applications is relatively new, and the British Academy is in a small group of funders to trial it, led by the Volkswagen Foundation in Germany, the Austrian Science Fund and the Health Research Council of New Zealand. The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) has arguably gone the furthest: it decided in late 2021 to use randomization in all tiebreaker cases across its entire grant portfolio of around 880 million Swiss francs (US$910 million).

Other funders should consider whether they should now follow in these footsteps. That’s because it is becoming clear that randomization is a fairer way to allocate grants when applications are too close to call, as a study from the Research on Research Institute in London shows (see go.nature.com/3s54tgw). Doing so would go some way to assuage concerns, especially in early-career researchers and those from historically marginalized communities, about the lack of fairness when grants are allocated using peer review.

The British Academy/Leverhulme small-grants scheme distributes around £1.5 million (US$1.7 million) each year in grants of up to £10,000 each. These are valuable despite their relatively small size, especially for researchers starting out. The academy’s grants can be used only for direct research expenses, but small grants are also typically used to fund conference travel or to purchase computer equipment or software. Funders also use them to spot promising research talent for future (or larger) schemes. For these reasons and more, small grants are competitive — the British Academy says it is able to fund only 20–30% of applications in each funding round…(More)”.

What competencies do public sector officials need to enhance national digital transformations?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development: “The Broadband Commission Working Group on AI Capacity Building has leveraged a multi-stakeholder leadership model to assess the critical capacity needs for public sector digital transformation, including from a developing country perspective. From interviews with policymakers, global and regional expert consultations and evaluation of current international practices, the Working Group has developed three competency domains and nine recommendations. The output is a competency framework for civil servants, spelling out the Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation Competencies needed today…(More)”

New WHO policy requires sharing of all research data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Press release: “Science and public health can benefit tremendously from sharing and reuse of health data. Sharing data allows us to have the fullest possible understanding of health challenges, to develop new solutions, and to make decisions using the best available evidence.

The Research for Health department has helped spearhead the launch of a new policy from the Science Division which covers all research undertaken by or with support from WHO. The goal is to make sure that all research data is shared equitably, ethically and efficiently. Through this policy, WHO indicates its commitment to transparency in order to reach the goal of one billion more people enjoying better health and well-being.

The WHO policy is accompanied by practical guidance to enable researchers to develop and implement a data management and sharing plan, before the research has even started. The guide provides advice on the technical, ethical and legal considerations to ensure that data, even patient data, can be shared for secondary analysis without compromising personal privacy.  Data sharing is now a requirement for research funding awarded by WHO and TDR. 

“We have seen the problems caused by the lack of data sharing on COVID-19,” said Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, WHO Chief Scientist. “When data related to research activities are shared ethically, equitably and efficiently, there are major gains for science and public health.”

The policy to share data from all research funded or conducted by WHO, and practical guidance to do so, can be found here…(More)”.

Towards an international data governance framework

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Steve MacFeely et al: “The CCSA argued that a Global Data Compact (GDC) could provide a framework to ensure that data are safeguarded as a global public good and as a resource to achieve equitable and sustainable development. This compact, by promoting common objectives, would help avoid fragmentation where each country or region adopts their own approach to data collection, storage, and use. A coordinated approach would give individuals and enterprises confidence that data relevant to them carries protections and obligations no matter where they are collected or used…

The universal principles and standards should set out the elements of responsible and ethical handling and sharing of data and data products. The compact should also move beyond simply establishing ethical principles and create a global architecture that includes standards and incentives for compliance. Such an architecture could be the foundation for rethinking the data economy, promoting open data, encouraging data exchange, fostering innovation and facilitating international trade. It should build upon the existing canon of international human rights and other conventions, laws and treaties that set out useful principles and compliance mechanisms.

Such a compact will require a new type of global architecture. Modern data ecosystems are not controlled by states alone, so any Compact, Geneva Convention, Commons, or Bretton Woods type agreement will require a multitude of stakeholders and signatories – states, civil society, and the private sector at the very least. This would be very different to any international agreement that currently exists. Therefore, to support a GDC, a new global institution or platform may be needed to bring together the many data communities and ecosystems, that comprise not only national governments, private sector and civil society but also participants in specific fields, such as artificial intelligence, digital and IT services. Participants would maintain and update data standards, oversee accountability frameworks, and support mechanisms to facilitate the exchange and responsible use of data. The proposed Global Digital Compact which has been proposed as part of Our Common Agenda will also need to address the challenges of bringing many different constituencies together and may point the way…(More)”

Innovation in the Public Sector: Smarter States, Services and Citizens

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Fatih Demir: “The book discusses smart governments and innovation in the public sector. In hopes of arriving at a clear definition of innovation in the field of public administration, the volume provides a wide survey of global policies and practices, especially those aimed at reducing bureaucracy and using information-communication technologies in public service delivery. Chapters look at current applications across countries and multiple levels of government, from public innovation labs in the UK to AI in South Korea. Providing concrete examples of innovation culture at work in public institutions, this volume will be of use to researchers and students studying new public management, public service delivery, and innovation as well as practitioners and professionals working in various public agencies…(More)”.

A Massive LinkedIn Study Reveals Who Actually Helps You Get That Job

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Viviane Callier : “If you want a new job, don’t just rely on friends or family. According to one of the most influential theories in social science, you’re more likely to nab a new position through your “weak ties,” loose acquaintances with whom you have few mutual connections. Sociologist Mark Granovetter first laid out this idea in a 1973 paper that has garnered more than 65,000 citations. But the theory, dubbed “the strength of weak ties,” after the title of Granovetter’s study, lacked causal evidence for decades. Now a sweeping study that looked at more than 20 million people on the professional social networking site LinkedIn over a five-year period finally shows that forging weak ties does indeed help people get new jobs. And it reveals which types of connections are most important for job hunters…Along with job seekers, policy makers could also learn from the new paper. “One thing the study highlights is the degree to which algorithms are guiding fundamental, baseline, important outcomes, like employment and unemployment,” Aral says. The role that LinkedIn’s People You May Know function plays in gaining a new job demonstrates “the tremendous leverage that algorithms have on employment and probably other factors of the economy as well.” It also suggests that such algorithms could create bellwethers for economic changes: in the same way that the Federal Reserve looks at the Consumer Price Index to decide whether to hike interest rates, Aral suggests, networks such as LinkedIn might provide new data sources to help policy makers parse what is happening in the economy. “I think these digital platforms are going to be an important source of that,” he says…(More)”

Global Digital Governance Through the Back Door of Corporate Regulation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Orit Fischman Afori: “Today, societal life is increasingly conducted in the digital sphere, in which two core attributes are prominent: this sphere is entirely controlled by enormous technology companies, and these companies are increasingly deploying artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. This reality generates a severe threat to democratic principles and human rights. Therefore, regulating the conduct of the companies ruling the digital sphere is an urgent agenda worldwide. Policymakers and legislatures around the world are taking their first steps in establishing a digital governance regime, with leading proposals in the EU. Although it is understood that there is a necessity to adopt a comprehensive framework for imposing accountability standards on technology companies and on the operation of AI technologies, traditional perceptions regarding the limits of intervention in the private sector and contemporary perceptions regarding the limits of antitrust tools hinder such legal moves.

Given the obstacles inherent in the use of existing legal means for introducing a digital governance regime, this article proposes a new path of corporate governance regulations. The proposal, belonging to a “second wave” of regulatory models for the digital sphere, is based on the understanding that the current complex technological reality requires sophisticated and pragmatic legal measures for establishing an effective framework for digital governance norms. Corporate governance is a system of rules and practices by which companies are guided and controlled. Because the digital sphere is governed by private corporations, it seems reasonable to introduce the desired digital governance principles through a framework that regulates corporations. The bedrock of corporate governance is promoting principles of corporate accountability, which are translated into a wide array of obligations. In the last two decades, corporate accountability has evolved into a new domain of corporate social responsibility (CSR), promoting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) purposes not aimed at maximizing profits in the short term. The various benefits of the complex corporate governance mechanisms may be used to promote the desired digital governance regime that would be applied by the technology companies. A key advantage of the corporate governance mechanism is its potential to serve as a vehicle to promulgate norms in the era of multinational corporations. Because the digital sphere is governed by a few giant US companies, corporate governance may be leveraged to promote digital governance principles with a global reach in a uniform manner…(More)”

The Public Good and Public Attitudes Toward Data Sharing Through IoT

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Karen Mossberger, Seongkyung Cho and Pauline Cheong: “The Internet of Things has created a wealth of new data that is expected to deliver important benefits for IoT users and for society, including for the public good. Much of the literature has focused on data collection through individual adoption of IoT devices, and big data collection by companies with accompanying fears of data misuse. While citizens also increasingly produce data as they move about in public spaces, less is known about citizen support for data collection in smart city environments, or for data sharing for a variety of public-regarding purposes. Through a nationally representative survey of over 2,000 respondents as well as interviews, we explore the willingness of citizens to share their data with different parties and in various circumstances, using the contextual integrity framework, the literature on the ‘publicness’ of organizations, and public value creation. We describe the results of the survey across different uses, for data sharing from devices and for data collection in public spaces. We conduct multivariate regression to predict individual characteristics that influence attitudes toward use of IoT data for public purposes. Across different contexts, from half to 2/3 of survey respondents were willing to share data from their own IoT devices for public benefits, and 80-93% supported the use of sensors in public places for a variety of collective benefits. Yet government is less trusted with this data than other organizations with public purposes, such as universities, nonprofits and health care institutions. Trust in government, among other factors, was significantly related to data sharing and support for smart city data collection. Cultivating trust through transparent and responsible data stewardship will be important for future use of IoT data for public good…(More)”.

Platformization of Urban Life

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Anke Strüver and Sybille Bauriedl: “The increasing platformization of urban life needs critical perspectives to examine changing everyday practices and power shifts brought about by the expansion of digital platforms mediating care-services, housing, and mobility. This book addresses new modes of producing urban spaces and societies. It brings both platform researchers and activists from various fields related to critical urban studies and labour activism into dialogue. The contributors engage with the socio-spatial and normative implications of platform-mediated urban everyday life and urban futures, going beyond a rigid techno-dystopian stance in order to include an understanding of platforms as sites of social creativity and exchange…(More)”.

What does AI Localism look like in action? A new series examining use cases on how cities govern AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Series by Uma Kalkar, Sara Marcucci, Salwa Mansuri, and Stefaan Verhulst: “…We call local instances of AI governance ‘AI Localism.’ AI Localism refers to the governance actions—which include, but are not limited to, regulations, legislations, task forces, public committees, and locally-developed tools—taken by local decision-makers to address the use of AI within a city or regional state.

It is necessary to note, however, that the presence of AI Localism does not mean that robust national- and state-level AI policy are not needed. Whereas local governance seems fundamental in addressing local, micro-level issues, tailoring, for instance, by implementing policies for specific AI use circumstances, national AI governance should act as a key tool to complement local efforts and provide cities with a cohesive, guiding direction.

Finally, it is important to mention how AI Localism is not necessarily good governance of AI at the local level. Indeed, there have been several instances where local efforts to regulate and employ AI have encroached on public freedoms and hurt the public good….

Examining the current state of play in AI localism

To this end, The Governance Lab (The GovLab) has created the AI Localism project to collect a knowledge base and inform a taxonomy on the dimensions of local AI governance (see below). This initiative began in 2020 with the AI Localism canvas, which captures the frames under which local governance methods are developing. This series presents current examples of AI localism across the seven canvas frames of: 

  • Principles and Rights: foundational requirements and constraints of AI and algorithmic use in the public sector;
  • Laws and Policies: regulation to codify the above for public and private sectors;
  • Procurement: mandates around the use of AI in employment and hiring practices; 
  • Engagement: public involvement in AI use and limitations;
  • Accountability and Oversight: requirements for periodic reporting and auditing of AI use;
  • Transparency: consumer awareness about AI and algorithm use; and
  • Literacy: avenues to educate policymakers and the public about AI and data.

In this eight-part series, released weekly, we will present current examples of each frame of the AI localism canvas to identify themes among city- and state-led legislative actions. We end with ten lessons on AI localism for policymakers, data and AI experts, and the informed public to keep in mind as cities grow increasingly ‘smarter.’…(More)”.